Order Code RS21168
Updated February 16June 2, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
The Peace Corps: Current Issues
Curt Tarnoff
Specialist in Foreign Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
As it prepares authorization and Foreign Operations appropriations legislation in
2006, Congress will consider the FY2007 level of funding for the Peace Corps and
related issues. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Generally viewed positively by the public and widely supported in Congress, the
Peace Corps, the U.S. agency that provides volunteer skills internationally, has drawn
congressional attention in recent years largely due to two issues — a Presidential initiative
to significantly expand the size of the agency and reports raising concerns regarding the
safety and security of volunteers. Both issues stimulated legislative action with bills
being approved by House or Senate. However, these legislative efforts died with the 108th
Congress, and the only issue of note to emerge in 2005 concerned the relationship
between the Peace Corps and the U.S. military. In 2006, the 109th Congress will consider
the President’s annual funding request for the Peace Corps.
Background
Founded in 1961, the Peace Corps has sought to meet its legislative mandate of
promoting world peace and friendship by sending American volunteers to serve at the
grassroots level in villages and towns in all corners of the globe. Living and working with
ordinary people, volunteers have contributed in a variety of capacities — such as teachers,
foresters, health promoters, and small business advisers — to improving the lives of those
they serve and helping others understand American culture. They also seek to share their
understanding of other countries with Americans back home through efforts like the Paul
D. Coverdell World Wise School program, which links serving volunteers with U.S.
elementary school classrooms. To date, more than 182,000 Peace Corps volunteers have
served in 138 countries. About 7,810 volunteers currently serve in 75 nations. The current
current Peace Corps Director is Gaddi Vasquez, Gaddi Vasquez, is leaving as soon as the Senate confirms
his nomination to be U.S. representative to the Food and Agriculture Organization. No
new Director has been nominated.
In addition to its basic two-year tour of duty, the Peace Corps introduced in 1996 a
Crisis Corps, drawing on former volunteers to provide short-term (up to six months)
emergency and humanitarian assistance at the community level with NGOs, relief, and
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
other development organizations. Hundreds of Crisis Corps volunteers have served in 40
countries, including post-tsunami Thailand and Sri Lanka. In September 2005, Crisis
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CRS-2
Corps volunteers were deployed to assist Hurricane Katrina relief, the first time in Peace
Corps history that volunteers were used domestically. To date, 272 volunteers have begun
assignments on the Gulf Coast.
Congressional Actions
Appropriations. The FY2006 Foreign Operations appropriations (P.L. 109-102,
H.R. 3057), signed into law on November 14, 2005, provides $322 million for the Peace
Corps. Following a one percent across-the-board rescission, the actual Peace Corps
appropriation is $318.8 million. This final appropriation is about $26.2 million less than
the President’s $345 million request and $1.4 million more than the FY2005
appropriation.
In early February, the Administration presented its FY2007 foreign operations budget
request to Congress. It provides $336.7 million for the Peace Corps, $17.9 million more
than the FY2006 appropriation — a 6% increase. On May 25, the House Appropriations
Committee approved a FY2007 foreign operations bill, providing $324.587 million for
the Peace Corps, $5.8 million more than the previous year but $12.1 million less than the
Administration request.
Authorization. Despite repeated efforts during the previous four years, Congress
adjourned in December 2005 without enacting a new Peace Corps authorization. On
April 6, 2005, the Senate began, but did not complete, consideration of S. 600 (S.Rept.
109-35), the State Department authorization, which contained language authorizing
appropriations for the Peace Corps in FY2006 at $345 million, the Administration request
level for that year, and “such sums as may be necessary” for FY2007.
More comprehensive bills approved by the Senate in 2002 (both S. 2667 and S. 12)
and by the House in 2003 (H.R. 1950) would have authorized appropriations that would
double the size of the Peace Corps as well as institute a wide range of reforms and new
programs.
Peace Corps and the U.S. Military. In 2005, a program approved by Congress
several years ago raised serious concerns, particularly in the community of former
volunteers, that the line traditionally drawn between U.S. defense and foreign policy and
the work of the Peace Corps may be crossed. The National Call to Service Program,
initiated in the FY2003 Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 107-314), allowed the Defense
Department to offer recruits the opportunity to meet the latter part of their eight-year
military obligation by serving in the Peace Corps or other national service program. Some
argued that any perceived identification of the Peace Corps with the U.S. military might
negatively impact acceptance of the program abroad and endanger the lives of volunteers.
The Peace Corps responded by saying that nothing in the way the agency recruits or treats
volunteers had changed as a result of the legislation. The Peace Corps said it was under
no obligation to accept the new military applicants. It further noted that both retired
military and Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) had joined the Peace Corps in the past, and
the only unusual thing that had been, and would continue to be, required, was a
commitment from DOD that the volunteer would not be called up for duty during his
volunteer service unless there is a national emergency. In FY2005, seven retired and IRR
CRS-3
military personnel entered the Peace Corps, none under the new program which was not
expected to see its first volunteer applicants until 2007, at the earliest.
The issue was viewed by many in the context of the long-standing policy and
practice barring the Peace Corps and volunteers from any relationship with the
CRS-3
intelligence community. Since the 1960s, a clear separation was felt to be necessary to
insure the safety of volunteers who might otherwise be targets of suspicion in developing
countries. In fact, leading up to the January 2003 termination of its Russia program, some
Russian officials periodically insinuated that volunteers were spies. Opponents of the
National Call to Service Program, while acknowledging its good intentions, feared the
“formal linkage” of the military with the Peace Corps that the legislation appeared to
establish would create similar incidents. Language removing the Peace Corps from the
program was adopted in the Department of Defense Authorization for FY2006 (H.R.
1815), approved by Congress in December 2005.
Safety and Security Legislation. Because they live and work at the grassroots
level in developing countries, Peace Corps volunteers appear to many Americans to be
especially vulnerable to crime. Even before September 11, their safety and security had
been a prime concern of the Peace Corps. The threat of anti-American terrorism has
increased those concerns. In late 2003, the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News ran a series of
reports highlighting — many former volunteers say exaggerating — the dangers
potentially faced by volunteers, and suggested that the agency was failing in its obligation
to provide adequate security.
Following hearings held by the House International Relations Committee, the House
approved H.R. 4060 on June 1, 2004. The Health, Safety, and Security of Peace Corps
Volunteers Act of 2004 (H.Rept. 108-481) sought to address some security concerns by
statutorily establishing the already-existing Office of Safety and Security in the Peace
Corps and creating an Ombudsman position to handle volunteer complaints. The bill also
required reports on screening procedures used to determine the psychological fitness of
those seeking to serve as volunteers, and a report on the “five year rule” that limits the
length of Peace Corps staff employment and which is regarded as one reason for high staff
turnover and loss of institutional memory on safety and security issues. Although the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee also held hearings on the issue, no safety and
security legislation was approved in the Senate in 2004.
In its report on H.R. 3057 (H.Rept. 109-152), the FY2006 Foreign Operations bill,
the House Appropriations Committee recognized an improvement in safety and security
efforts of the Peace Corps in recent years. It also called for the agency to create a global
volunteer mapping system tracking volunteer locations in its emergency response system.
Issues for Congress
Expansion Initiative. In his State of the Union speech to Congress on January 29,
2002, President Bush announced a proposal to double the size of the Peace Corps within
five years from its January 2002 level of about 7,000, bringing it closer than it has been
in decades to its 1966 peak of 15,556.
However, by 2005, with three years of insufficient appropriations, it had become
clear that the original Administration plan to double the size of the Peace Corps over five
CRS-4
years would not be met. Meeting that goal would have meant a significant increase in its
budget over the same period, presumably to be maintained for years thereafter. By
FY2007, the Peace Corps appropriation was expected to be $485 million — more than
$200 million greater than FY2002. While the various House- and Senate-approved
authorization bills would have met or slightly surpassed the Administration proposal,
CRS-4
Congress has had to weigh whether sufficient funds were available vis-a-vis other foreign
aid priorities — such as HIV/AIDS, terrorism, and child survival — to warrant
appropriating the amounts requested by the Administration. Despite the apparent
popularity of the Peace Corps, constraints on spending combined with the pull of other
priorities undermined the rapid expansion plan. In early 2005, with an FY2006 request
$98 million below its own original expansion budget plan and a newly stated goal in its
budget justification document of 8,000 volunteers by the end of FY2008, the
Administration appeared to have abandoned the initiative.
Table 1. Peace Corps Budget: FY2002-FY2007
Fiscal Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
275
317
359
401
345
336.7 (485)
Appropriation ($ mil)
278.7
295.1
308.2
317.4
318.8
—
Total Volunteers
6,636
7,533
7,733
7,810
(13,600)
(14,000)
Request ($ mil)
Source: Peace Corps and CRS. FY2002 figure includes $3.9 million Emergency Response Fund transfer.
FY2002-FY2006 figures reflect across-the-board rescissions. Figures in parentheses are original expansion
request. Total volunteers are number at end of the fiscal year and, for FY2006 forward, anticipated number
if expansion appropriation had been met. Under original expansion initiative, FY2003 volunteer number
target was 8,200; FY2004 target was 10,000; FY2005 target was 12,000.
From the beginning, the expansion initiative ran into resistance. In providing only
$285 million for the Peace Corps in its FY2003 appropriations legislation, Senate
appropriators noted in report language (S.Rept. 107-219) that the expansion plan was
“overly-ambitious,” suggesting it may have to be drawn out over more than five years.
In each year from FY2003 to FY2006, Congress appropriated funds $22 million, $51
million, $84 million, and $26.2 million, respectively, below the Administration request.
Despite these shortfalls in funding, Congress has appeared supportive of continued
expansion. The FY2005 foreign operations statement of managers called for the
establishment of new Peace Corps programs in Cambodia and other locations in Asia.
Program and Management Issues. In considering the expansion initiative,
Members of Congress appear to have been concerned that even an increase in size of the
Peace Corps more modest than that originally envisioned might exacerbate existing
weaknesses or create strains in its operations. Both House and Senate legislation in the
108th Congress stressed the importance to Peace Corps’ effectiveness of improved
strategic planning and H.R. 4060, the House bill that addressed security issues, called for
a report on the extent to which work assignments are well-developed and volunteers are
suitable for them. No matter the outcome of the expansion effort, Congress is likely to
continue to pay particular attention to how the agency addresses recruitment,
programming, and support of volunteers.
The recruitment of volunteers with appropriate skills and willingness to live in
unfamiliar and sometimes uncomfortable conditions is essential to the overall mission of
CRS-5
the Peace Corps. A substantial spike in applicants and those expressing interest in
applying since September 11 has made it easier for the Peace Corps to meet its
recruitment goals. In FY2004, 148,216 people expressed an interest in the Peace Corps
(up from 94,463 in FY2001), 13,249 actually applied (8,897 in FY2001), and 3,811
became trainees (3,191 in FY2001). The agency, however, while adept at recruiting
CRS-5
generalists and providing them with sufficient training to carry out useful assignments,
has not emphasized the provision of highly skilled professionals, such as doctors,
agronomists, or engineers, which, many argue, more accurately reflects the current needs
of developing countries. Weighed against this view is the belief that the Peace Corps is
an agency of public diplomacy as much as it is a development organization, and personal
interaction, and demonstration of U.S. values is as important as providing technical
expertise. To accommodate more highly skilled personnel, the Peace Corps might have
to change many existing practices, including methods of recruitment, training,
programming, and perhaps even terms of service.
The Peace Corps has been criticized in the past for providing inadequate
programming and support of volunteers. This view was reflected in a 1990 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) investigation (Peace Corps: Meeting the Challenges of the
1990s, May 1990, NSIAD-90-122). It noted that some volunteers had little or nothing to
do or had spent six or more months developing their own assignments, without benefit
of site visits by Peace Corps staff. The GAO attributed the programming problem to a
failure of planning, evaluation, and monitoring systems. Since then, the Peace Corps
maintains that it has addressed these weaknesses with systematic approaches to project
development, annual project reviews, and increased opportunities for site visits and
volunteer feedback. However, incidents suggesting poor programming and staff support
still occur, although their frequency and depth is not known, and, one sign of volunteer
dissatisfaction — the attrition rate — remains arguably high at 30.5% (2002).
Security Issues. Among the concerns raised regarding Peace Corps security are
that crimes against volunteers have increased. The Dayton Daily News articles that ran
in the fall of 2003 assert that the Peace Corps is sending volunteers to places “far more
dangerous” than it admits publicly, does not warn volunteers about criminal incidents, and
does not supply adequate security training or supervision. It suggests that Peace Corps
staff ignore volunteer concerns and provide insufficient support to volunteers who have
experienced crime. The GAO has issued two reports since 2002 addressing security
issues. While noting improvements by Peace Corps in its more recent report, the GAO
has suggested that “some unevenness” in compliance with safety procedures mandated
by Peace Corps headquarters likely remains.1
Statistics kept by the Peace Corps, varying from year to year and by type of assault,
may be selectively interpreted. Both in absolute terms and when viewed in the context
of incidents per 1,000 volunteer years to account for the rise in number of volunteers in
this period, they show a large increase in the number of aggravated assaults from 57 in
1993 (9 per 1,000 volunteer years) to 102 in 1999 (16 per 1,000 volunteer years) and then
1
Government Accountability Office, Peace Corps: Initiatives for Addressing Safety and Security
Challenges Hold Promise, but Progress Should be Assessed, GAO-02-818, July 2002, and Peace
Corps: Status of Initiatives to Improve Volunteer Safety and Security, GAO-04-600T, March 24,
2004.
CRS-6
a leveling-off to 87 cases (14 per 1,000 volunteer years) in 2002. Reports of rape rose
from 10 incidents in 1993 (3.1 per 1,000 female volunteer years) to a peak of 20 (5.3 per
1,000 female volunteer years) in 1997. Rape events in absolute terms decreased by 40%
between 1997 and 2002 to 12 (3.2 per 1,000 female volunteer years). However the
1
Government Accountability Office, Peace Corps: Initiatives for Addressing Safety and Security
Challenges Hold Promise, but Progress Should be Assessed, GAO-02-818, July 2002, and Peace
Corps: Status of Initiatives to Improve Volunteer Safety and Security, GAO-04-600T, March 24,
2004.
CRS-6
numbers are viewed, the GAO points out that, since the number of events is small, there
may be some question as to whether the apparent trends are significant.
These statistics also reflect volunteer reporting rates, which likely produce
undercounting, and they do not demonstrate whether volunteers are any more or less
susceptible to assault than Americans living in New York or Des Moines. When surveyed
in 2003, 86% of volunteers reported that they felt safe where they lived.2
In general, the Peace Corps says that it gives the safety and security of its volunteers
the highest priority. It has been particularly concerned in recent years with threats of
terrorism, crime, and civil strife, and has responded by upgrading communications, testing
emergency action plans, and other security measures. Before establishing a new country
program, the Peace Corps considers a number of criteria, including the presence of a
stable government and effective law enforcement and the absence of anti-American acts
of terror in the operational area. Evacuations and closure of missions to insure the wellbeing of volunteers in cases of political instability and civil unrest have constrained the
growth of the Peace Corps. In the past ten years, volunteers have been evacuated from
at least 27 countries for these reasons, including three attributed to the events of
September 11 — Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and the Kyrgyz Republic.
Under the Administration’s expansion proposal, the Peace Corps was expected to
enter Afghanistan and other Islamic countries where they do not currently serve. At this
time, 20% of all volunteers are serving in countries with Muslim populations of over
40%. In general, the Peace Corps has argued that the close interpersonal relationship
between volunteers and members of their host country community helps to make them
safe. However, despite the appeal of using Peace Corps volunteers to convey U.S. culture
and values directly to the grassroots of Islamic countries, many of these countries of U.S.
foreign policy interest might be considered unsafe for Americans over the foreseeable
future. Conferees on the FY2002 foreign operations bill, while supporting the concept
of Peace Corps entry into Muslim countries, noted their key concern was volunteer safety.
Although the Administration announced in 2002 that the goal “will be to deploy ...
volunteers to Afghanistan as quickly as possible,” it also noted that all decisions regarding
new country entry “will be made in a manner consistent with the safety and security of
volunteers.” The Peace Corps has not yet entered Afghanistan.
2
Peace Corps 2006 Congressional Budget Justification, p. 223.